I believe it is scientific and not outside the empirical evidence to say the following:

THE BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM HAS THE MECHANICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF AN ELECTRIC MOTOR1. There are 40 protein parts required to form a flagellum motor2 These parts fit together to empirically function as the following:a. rotorb. stator--stator works with armature in electric motors to create a electromagnetic spinning force.c. U-jointd. a drive shaft with bushings3. There is of course a filament which functions as a propeller

Scott Minnich, Molecular Biologist, University of Idaho

It is not convenient that we give them these names, that is truly their function.

It is fueled by an acid flow. Michael Behe, Biochemist, Lehigh University

It uses a flow of acid from outside the cell to inside of the cell to power the propellor.

Other notable features.

"Two gears, forward and reverse, water cooled, proton motive force...some of these machines can turn up to 100,000 RPMs...." Scott Minnich, MB, U of Idaho

Scientific Conclusion--Scientifically one can only say the given statement, that "the bacterial flagellum has the mechanical characteristics of an electric motor" with a filament for a propeller. The bacteria does not have and is not motive by "microscopic muscle," or general protoplasm. I think it is safe and scientific to call it a machine and a motor. To say this is not the case would be to say that a motor is not a motor.

Unscientific Conclusions--Now, to enter into the origin of this, whether it evolved, or whether it was by creative fiat is unprovable by the empirical evidence in the flagellum itself. Those who would argue otherwise are using inductive reasoning.

Scientific Statements1. The bacterial flagellum has the mechanical characteristics of an electric motor.

2. It is NOT scientific to say "the BF is designed," but since an electric motor is designed one could say, "the BF has the mechanical characteristics of a designed electric motor."

3. Those who argue otherwise, must then argue that 1) An electirc motor is not designed and/or 2) the BF does not have the mechanical characteristics of a motor.

why must an electric motor be designed? This seems to me like a faulty logic: just because something in the natural world resembles a human-produced machine does not mean that that natural machine has to be created the same way as the artificial one. From what I know (and I am not an evolutionary biologist) the current opinion is that the bacterial flagellum evolved from a secretory apparatus similar to the type III secretion system.

"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter

My 2nd statement is that it wouldn't be scientific to say the flagellum is designed. The only scientific observation you can make is that they (BF and elec mot.) share a majority of common attributes, and that the empirical function (thank you Mr. Arastus)justifies calling it a motor. Whether it evolved or was by creative fiat is another issue. That's the way I see it anyway, maybe most don't share that point of view.

Being truly scientific is my point. If we go too far beyond the actual observation, we can not claim authority on an issue. The subject is origins, which means many one time unrepeatable events happened up until the present. We have only the present by which to interpret the past. Therefore, on origins especially, we cannot use words like "this proves"--"this disproves". Refutation is different than disproving something. Giving inductive or circumstantial evidence is different than proving something.

Just one "for instance" on the subject of judging the past by the present. Slow and gradual is the pace set by evolution. Mountains move slowly and are measured by current movements--inches a year. Rivers cut out canyons--measured by today's erosion rates--ignoring catastrophic power. But then at the same time the measurement of the sun, which currently is shrinking, is explained away as a cycle. This is obvious unscientific bias. You can't just explain away things when it's inconvenient data, but use a different standard of acceptance when it fits your model.

I could have taken the flagellum example and said "oh look, it's designed, that proves there's a Designer." I may be able to say that on personal level but not on a scientific plane. Neither do I think that an evolutionist should say "look, horizontal gene transfer, this proves evolution." He can say it on a personal level, but not on a scientific plane. HGT is scientific fact and observation, evolution is a theory.

Lenski has created some 45,000 generations of E. coli, and there are signs that the populations have started to evolve along different paths. For example, in 2008 one line of E. coli evolved to use citrate as a source of nutrients, and the citrate-utilizing organisms have "taken over" one of the lines, because the ability to use citrate has given them an edge in competition against the bacteria that cannot utilize citrate. Natural selection has favoured the cells containing genes to use citrate and they have now surpassed the bacteria lacking those genes.

The ability to utilize citrate hasn't been just one random mutation, it has required several accumulated changes before the ability evolved.

There are also other signs of evolution that have been observed, you can find those out at Lenski's home pages. It is also interesting to see whether the other lines eventually achieve the same or similar ability to utilize citrate, indicating that they are adapting for their environment.

There's also a related paper about the topic: "Parallel changes in gene expression after 20,000 generations of evolution in Escherichia coli" by Cooper et al. (PNAS, 2002)

"BF is irreducibly complex" -- unscientific"BF may have been created." -- unscientific"BF is created/designed." -- unscientific"BF may have been designed." -- scientific (but with little/no supporting evidence)"BF may have evolved." -- scientific"BF definitely evolved." -- unscientific as a conclusion, but used as a scientific assumption because it is currently the best scientific explanation.

What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"

They say theres more than one way to skin a cat, when it comes to basic principles of movement there isn't such great diversity.

Everything that moves follows the same similar function and movements to achieve its movement in the matter around it. These are based on Newtons laws of motion.Its not logical to say that because something in bacteria resembles the same METHOD of movement as something we designed that it too had to of been designed. Its more to the point that the movements we associate with propeller motion are seen in both artificial and biological entities.

A more extreme example of this would be to say that any biological entity which makes use of friction is a tread, which is every single thing in existence. We designed a tread off the principle of equal and opposite force, which gives rise to friction providing a way to move relative to other matter.

Yes we can say it is like a propeller and yes it is a biological motor. It was created evolutionarily speaking by mutation or chance coupled with natural selection to resemble today probably the most effective form of movement for these bacteria.

Jesse

I spit in the mouth of a god, who whispers in the minds of the children

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is at all comprehensible" - Albert Einstein.

...12 populations of Escherichia coli having a common ancestor were allowed to evolve for more than 40,000 generations in a defined environment....we showed that both mutations that evolved were beneficial in the environment used for the long-term experiment and that these mutations caused parallel phenotypic changes....In contrast to their fitness-enhancing effect in the environment where they evolved, both mutations decreased cellular resistance to osmotic stress. Moreover, one mutation reduced fitness during prolonged stationary phase. Therefore, alteration of the PBP2 concentration contributed to physiological trade-offs and ecological specialization during experimental evolution.[/i][/u]

In other words, they gained and lost--physiological trade offs. And what was good for one environment wasn't for another--ecological specialization.

I had read an article before on these trade offs by Kevin L. Anderson Ph.D. and Georgia Purdom Ph. D.

However, these mutations frequently eliminate or reduce pre-existing cellular systems and functions. This has been referred to as antagonistic pleiotropy; meaning the cell experiences a trade-off where a temporary benefit for surviving one environmental condition is provided at the expense of systems used for other environments. If the environmental conditions change, the mutation usually becomes less beneficial and perhaps even detrimentalA Creationist Perspective of Beneficial Mutations in Bacteriaby Kevin L. Anderson, PhD, and Georgia Purdom, PhD

This would tend to neutralize NS in theory--a trade off good in one environment and bad in another. So what happens when the environment changes or they move to a different environment?

The earth is not a laboratory with intelligent scientists controlling a system en vitro. It is an open system with changing environments.

These bacteria are still bacteria. Lets see if after another 40000 generations they will still be bacteria. On the other hand, wouldn't a wise creator make such a small creature which is responsible for the decay process on a molecular level so adaptive to different lacks and shortages of chemicals in the environment? If they were extinct can you imagine the problems it would cause!

AFJ wrote:This would tend to neutralize NS in theory--a trade off good in one environment and bad in another. So what happens when the environment changes or they move to a different environment?

This is exactly what natural selection is all about. An organism cannot have all the possible traits and characteristics there are available, so it is very often a trade off: you give away a trait that might've been very useful, but is not any more as important in the new environment, in order to save energy, time and room to build some other structure that helps in the new situation. Of course, if the environment reverts back to the old situation, the organism is in major trouble.

Natural selection cannot predict environmental changes, so there is always a certain degree of lag and always a chance that the new ability turns out to be disadvantageous on the long run. It also rarely manages to produce flawless designs, because no environment is stable enough long enough to hone these things into perfection. It is usually enough that the current design is better than its competitors and good enough to survive in general.